On 11/15/2017 10:38 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 12:25 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 12:06 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 08:03 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
g++.dg/lambda/lambda-switch.C Has recently regressed.
g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-switch.C
It appears the
location of a warning message has moved.
l = []() // { dg-warning "statement will never
be executed" }
{
case 3: // { dg-error "case" }
break; // { dg-error "break" }
}; <--- warning now here
We seem to be diagnosing the last line of the statement, not the
first.
That seems not a useful.
I've not investigated what patch may have caused this, on the
chance
someone might already know?
nathan
The warning was added in r236597 (aka
1398da0f786e120bb0b407e84f412aa9fc6d80ee):
+2016-05-23 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c/49859
+ * common.opt (Wswitch-unreachable): New option.
+ * doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wswitch-unreachable.
+ * gimplify.c (gimplify_switch_expr): Implement the
-Wswitch-
unreachable
+ warning.
which had it at there (23:7).
r244705 (aka 3ef7eab185e1463c7dbfa2a8d1af5d0120cf9f76) moved the
warning from 23:7 up to the "[] ()" at 19:6 in:
+2017-01-20 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c/64279
[...snip...]
+ * g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-switch.C: Move dg-warning.
I tried it with some working copies I have to hand:
- works for me with r254387 (2017-11-03)
- fails for me with r254700 (2017-11-13)
so hopefully that helps track it down.
Dave
Searching in the November archives of the gcc-regression ML for
"lambda-switch.c":
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?wm=wrd&form=extended&m=all&s=D
&q=lambda-switch.c&ul=%2Fml%2Fgcc-regression%2F2017-11%2F%25
showed e.g.:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-11/msg00173.html
"Regressions on trunk at revision 254648 vs revision 254623"
which says this is a new failure somewhere in that range; so it
presumably happened sometime on 2017-11-10 after r254623 and up to
(maybe ==) r254648.
Looking at:
svn log -r r254623:r254648 |less
nothing jumps out at me as being related.
Hope this is helpful
Dave
Actually, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-11/msg00157.html
has a tighter range: r254628 vs r254635.
Looking at:
svn log -r r254628:r254635 |less
I see msebor's r254630 ("PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking
in strncpy") has:
* gimple.c (gimple_build_call_from_tree): Set call location.
with:
+ gimple_set_location (call, EXPR_LOCATION (t));
Maybe that's it? (nothing else in that commit range seems to affect
locations).
Yes, that's it. Before the change there would be no location
associated with a GIMPLE call seen in gimple-fold. The location
would only get added later, after folding.
The purpose of the lambda-switch.C test is to verify GCC doesn't
ICE on the ill-formed code. The warning is incidental to the test
case so I've adjusted it to filter it out.
Martin
